Rules question

[Official Old Man]

Yes you can change the order after all eligible players have taken a kick - there is nothing in the laws to say you can't.

If the keeper is injured during the penalty kicks then he may be substituted but doesn't have to be.

All players on the field at the end of play are eligible and all must take a kick unless they become injured and physically incapable during the penalties.

In the specific situation of the CAN final if the keeper had not been able to take a kick either a substitute could come on and take his kick for him or one of the other ten other players could take the kick and no substitute would be allowed. This gives an advantage to the team kicking second as they can have an outfield player take a vital kick rather than the keeper but it is also a huge risk as if the keeper doesn't take the kick, there is no way that he would be allowed to go back in goal if the kick is missed and so the team would have to continue without a keeper.

So looking at the rules (laws) of the game, this is how I see it but the Ghana manager would be up in arms. Having missed Ivory Coast needed to score. So giving the ball to a hot shot would be a gamble.

 

[BensGrandad]

LVG wouldn't be able to deem De Gea illegible, that would have to be the referee. I can't see how in all likelihood the keeper could get so injured between saving a penalty and having to have his go that the ref would agree to it.

If he dived to save the penalty and in so doing injured his foot leg or knee or hit the post knocked himself out and suffered concussion. My whole argument is that the rules do not adequately cover such an occurrence so as to make them full proof and not open to misnterpretation.

 

[McTavish]

If he dived to save the penalty and in so doing injured his foot leg or knee or hit the post knocked himself out and suffered concussion. My whole argument is that the rules do not adequately cover such an occurrence so as to make them full proof and not open to misnterpretation.

Yes they do - see my explanation above.

It may not be fair but it is clear what would happen. If all subs had not been used then a sub could (but would not have to) come on. If a sub comes on then he takes the next kick. If no sub comes on then any of the remaining ten players could take the next kick.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

If he dived to save the penalty and in so doing injured his foot leg or knee or hit the post knocked himself out and suffered concussion. My whole argument is that the rules do not adequately cover such an occurrence so as to make them full proof and not open to misnterpretation.

has a keeper ever been injured facing a penalty? its unlikely they would dive into the post especially as they dive forwards. Proving a damaged knee to the ref sufficiently to deem him illegible would be a big ask

 

[BensGrandad]

My argument is that it is unlikely but the laws should cover it clearly if it did happen.